American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Term Paper Example

Native Americans have, by any objective standard, suffered enormous social, cultural, and economic consequences as a result of European colonization and the ensuing centuries in which the United States developed into a world superpower. In this time, one of the most significant issues Native Americans have faced has been the loss of tribal land and the associated destruction of their cultural and religious heritages and identities. Countless treaties signed between Native Americans and U.S. state and federal government agencies have been ignored, and countless numbers of Native Americans have been displaced from ancestral homelands that have enormous cultural and religious importance, and Native Americans have also been cut off from practicing religious ceremonies that require the use of banned items such as eagle feathers or the ritual use of peyote. In 1978 the U.S. government enacted the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which was intended to protect Native Americans from being barred from using such items or having access to sacred lands. Although this law was supposed to help Native Americans there have been many notable legal cases where its provisions appear to have been ignored or overridden by the courts. The following opinion brief is intended to provide an overview of AIRFA and discussion and analysis of its benefits.

As its name suggests, AIRFA is focused on the freedom of Native Americans to practice their religions with the least possible amount of interference from state and federal governments. The protection afforded by AIRFA was intended to be legally supported by the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

When AIRFA was signed into law, then-President Jimmy Carter commented:

“In the past, Government agencies and departments have on occasion denied Native Americans access to particular sites and interfered with religious practices and customs where such use conflicted with Federal regulations. In many instances, the Federal officials responsible for the enforcement of these regulations were unaware of the nature of traditional native religious practices and, consequently, of the degree to which their agencies interfered with such practices” (Rievman, 1989/2015)

These comments are in keeping with the long history of oppression by the U.S. government against Native Americans. Actions by the U.S. Government such as the Indian removal Act of 1830 allowed the government to forcibly relocate thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands in the southern United States to reservations on the far side of the Mississippi River (Rievman). This and similar legislation made it all but impossible for Native Americans to resist such displacement, and the provisions of AIRFA were intended to provide greater legal protection for Native Americans while also acknowledging the past historical injustices perpetrated against them by the government.

Because Native American cultural and religious practices have long been rooted in the geography and resources of tribal lands, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Native Americans to practice their religions in any meaningful way if they are forced off their ancestral lands, or if the resources of those lands are exploited for construction or other purposes. The provisions of AIRFA are fairly broad, but they clearly establish a framework in which Native Americans should be legally able to oppose such exploitation on religious grounds. Despite these seemingly clear-cut parameters, the enforcement of AIRFA has been spotty, and far too often the outcomes of relevant legal battles between Native Americans and government agencies have found in favor of the state at the expense of native peoples and their lands (Rievman). Other legal cases have found that Native Americans have been penalized for the use of religious sacraments such as peyote that left them subject to economic and legal repercussions (law.cornell.edu). While AIRFA was seemingly written with the best of intentions, the practical implications for Native Americans have often been quite negative.

A series of notable legal challenges have been brought between Native American tribes and government agencies, some of which have had far-reaching consequences for parties on both sides. One of these legal challenges was the case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. In this case the U.S. Forest Service wanted to build a road through parts of Northwest California including portions of the Kalamath National Forest. The tribes of Yurok, Karok, Talowa and Hupa were all native to parts of the lands on which the Forest Service wanted to build, and representatives of these tribes filed suit against the government. The main argument being made by the Native Americans was that the road would destroy pristine lands that were not just the ancestral homes of these tribes, but were also sacred religious sites; destroying them would mean violating the provisions of AIRFA (Rievman). Despite the clear wording of AIRFA, the court determined that the Native Americans did not have a compelling legal reason to stop the Forest Service from building its road.

The Lyng case highlighted many areas of contention between Native American tribes and the federal government. Issues related to forestry, logging, and their impacts on Native American lands had long been discussed in public and private forums, and in the aftermath of the case the U.S. Forest Service commissioned a report that was intended to determine the actual and practical effects on and implications for Native Americans who were faced with the destruction of their tribal lands.  This report, which came to be known as the Theodoratus Report, determined that the effects of such destruction and displacement were quite severe. According to the report:

“Field data indicate that the increased intrusion into this sacred region would adversely affect the ability and/or success of the individuals quest for spiritual power…the nature of the Northwest Indian perceptions of the high country and the requirements for their specific religious beliefs and practices associated with the high country make mitigation of the impact of construction of any of the proposed routes impossible” (Rievman)

While the complete Theodoratus Report runs many hundreds of pages, there are several findings which are worthy of noting. One of the basic conclusions of the report was that the displacement of Native Americans from tribal lands had enormous negative cultural and social consequences. The very cohesion and identity of the affected Native American tribes was eroded by the removal of such Natives from their lands, or by the destruction of the geographical features and resources of those lands. Despite such findings, and clear and compelling set of guidelines in AIRFA, the Natives Americans lost the Lyng case in a decision that was allowed to stand.

Along with the impact of displacement on Native Americans, they also had to deal with the effects of being barred from religious practices. The use of peyote has long been banned by the federal government, despite being a ritual sacrament for many Native Americans in practices that date back thousands of years. In the case of Employment Division v. Smith, the state argued that respondent Alfred Smith was not entitled to benefits from unemployment compensation after being fired for using peyote (law.cornell.edu). According to the state, Smith had engaged in misconduct, which was a fireable offense, and denied him benefits. Smith had participated in Native American religious ceremonies which required the use of peyote, and he claimed protection against being fired (and being denied unemployment benefits) under the provisions of AIRFA. Although the state of Oregon eventually found in favor of Smith, the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling (law.cornell.edu). As is the case of Lyng, the protections described in AIRFA proved to be of little help regardless of the fact that Smith had a strong argument in his favor.

The cases involving these and other Native Americans are not the only times in which religious freedoms have been at stake in court, and in some instances these cases have found in favor of such freedoms. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder the Supreme Court found that the state did not have a compelling reason to override the religious freedoms of the local Amish community, which included the right to home-school their children (law.jrank.edu). Also, earlier cases have had effects on future cases and legislation, such as the passage of an amendment to AIRFA that allowed the use of peyote for religious ceremonies (ndsn.org). Alfred Smith may have lost his case, but is fight helped to promote the cause of religious freedom that led to the addition of this amendment.

The amendments to AIRFA made the wording of the legislation stronger, and set out more specific guidelines for the use of peyote and other religious items and artifacts (. Despite such advances, however, Native Americans still face issues related to access to sacred grounds and the social fallout of being displaced from tribal lands. It is clear that the very survival of tribal identity is at stake, and it is imperative that the provisions of AIRFA and other legal and political protections are supported and upheld by the U.S. government and the judicial system.

Works Cited

Law.cornell.edu,. ‘Employment Division V. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute’. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Law.jrank.org,. ‘Wisconsin V. Yoder – Significance’. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Ndsn.org,. ‘Peyote Bill Signed’. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Rievman, Joshua D. ‘Judicial Scrutiny Of Native American Free Exercise Rights: Lyng and The Decline Of The Yoder doctrine’. Lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu. N.p., 1989. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.